ChatterBank5 mins ago
Iacgmouh - Richard Madeley
140 Answers
I see Richard Madely has been taken to hospital 'as a precaution' after falling ill on the show.
I remember forty years ago when we as a nation watched aghast as Clive James showed clips of Endurance', a Japanese game show where contestants were tortured for the entertainment of the viewing masses, and he quite rightly pointed out that this was a hugely horrible way to offer something disguised as amusement for anyone who was disturtbed enough to find entertainment in it. We all put it down to a fundamental cruelty in the Japanese psyche, and nodded that we are very very different in the West.
Now, we have exactly the same thing, except without even the poor excuse of offering money prizes to unknowns - we have it with rich 'celebrities' being paid fees to humilaite themselves for the edification of the viewing public.
What sort of a viewing nation have we become where making people ill is seen as entertainment? If we have slid down that path in a mere forty years, what sort of a dystopian future are we headed for?
Are we going to torture animals for amusement? Oh, I forgot, we've already done that in this horrible programme - but because the creatures concerned do not make any noise when eaten alive, and are not judged attractive enough for anyone to disgusted at their treatment, only their appearence.
I honestly think we have to have a serious look at what sort of a culture we are turning into, and maybe think about stopping this nonsense, however popular it may be.
Popularity is simply not justification for this kind of programme - let's be honest, you could produce a show of bear baiting and it would achieve an audience.
Time to stop pandering to the worst in people, before we start 'entertaining' ourselves with spectacles that would make the ancient Romans turn away.
I remember forty years ago when we as a nation watched aghast as Clive James showed clips of Endurance', a Japanese game show where contestants were tortured for the entertainment of the viewing masses, and he quite rightly pointed out that this was a hugely horrible way to offer something disguised as amusement for anyone who was disturtbed enough to find entertainment in it. We all put it down to a fundamental cruelty in the Japanese psyche, and nodded that we are very very different in the West.
Now, we have exactly the same thing, except without even the poor excuse of offering money prizes to unknowns - we have it with rich 'celebrities' being paid fees to humilaite themselves for the edification of the viewing public.
What sort of a viewing nation have we become where making people ill is seen as entertainment? If we have slid down that path in a mere forty years, what sort of a dystopian future are we headed for?
Are we going to torture animals for amusement? Oh, I forgot, we've already done that in this horrible programme - but because the creatures concerned do not make any noise when eaten alive, and are not judged attractive enough for anyone to disgusted at their treatment, only their appearence.
I honestly think we have to have a serious look at what sort of a culture we are turning into, and maybe think about stopping this nonsense, however popular it may be.
Popularity is simply not justification for this kind of programme - let's be honest, you could produce a show of bear baiting and it would achieve an audience.
Time to stop pandering to the worst in people, before we start 'entertaining' ourselves with spectacles that would make the ancient Romans turn away.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Bobbi - // Far from digging at Naomi as is your want ... //
As I have pointed out previously, naomi is in no need of your instant defence, which takes the form of 'diggingt at me, which is ironic.
I am simply pointing out that adding to a thread off the toipic because you have not bothered to read it, is a pointless exercise.
// ... perhaps you could direct your indignation at those who choose to spout hatred on here to people who actually watch the program ….oh and the soaps too, the superiority clap trap from some is vomit inducing! //
I am not 'indignant' at anyone or anything - and I am not minded to continue diluting the thread with an unrelated argument about the merits of soaps, or the people who watch them.
As I said to naomi - the OP is not about Ant and Dec, equally it is not about soaps.
If people wish to go down the 'soap' route, fine, but I will not be joining them - I am indifferent to soaps and the people who enjoy them.
As I have pointed out previously, naomi is in no need of your instant defence, which takes the form of 'diggingt at me, which is ironic.
I am simply pointing out that adding to a thread off the toipic because you have not bothered to read it, is a pointless exercise.
// ... perhaps you could direct your indignation at those who choose to spout hatred on here to people who actually watch the program ….oh and the soaps too, the superiority clap trap from some is vomit inducing! //
I am not 'indignant' at anyone or anything - and I am not minded to continue diluting the thread with an unrelated argument about the merits of soaps, or the people who watch them.
As I said to naomi - the OP is not about Ant and Dec, equally it is not about soaps.
If people wish to go down the 'soap' route, fine, but I will not be joining them - I am indifferent to soaps and the people who enjoy them.
naomi - // AH, //I have asked over eight hundred questions on here,//
I've asked over 1800 - but who's counting? I've no idea what that's all about. //
I am happy to explain - my point is that Shirley only ever responds to my posts by having a personal off-topic moan to back her up her baseless personal animosity.
I simply suggested that she could do something more useful than picking a pointless fight, such as adding to the site with a Question occasionally, and then I could pop up and be nasty to her for the sake of it.
I've asked over 1800 - but who's counting? I've no idea what that's all about. //
I am happy to explain - my point is that Shirley only ever responds to my posts by having a personal off-topic moan to back her up her baseless personal animosity.
I simply suggested that she could do something more useful than picking a pointless fight, such as adding to the site with a Question occasionally, and then I could pop up and be nasty to her for the sake of it.
Bobbi - // But not indifferent to people on here calling those who do watch I’m a Celeb, MORONS ? //
If people wish to express an opinion about others' viewing habits, that is their right. Generic labels do not contravene Site Rules.
If people wish to express an opinion about others' viewing habits, that is their right. Generic labels do not contravene Site Rules.
AH, //I simply suggested that she could do something more useful than picking a pointless fight, such as adding to the site with a Question occasionally, and then I could pop up and be nasty to her for the sake of it.//
Shirley posts what she wants to post … as we all do. I don’t see how that prevents you from popping up to be nasty to her or to anyone else. Nothing ever stopped you before.
Shirley posts what she wants to post … as we all do. I don’t see how that prevents you from popping up to be nasty to her or to anyone else. Nothing ever stopped you before.
Andy you’re sounding more pompous by the second!
Re Naomi, I never have had to defend her she does a damn good job of that herself , and does it well!
Re Burlyshirley, there’s no hard and fast rule that says she has to post any questions , if she wants to contribute just by answering or telling it as it is, then so be it, shes not breaking Site Rules but I see you yourself have derailed your own thread now ( hilarious )
Re Naomi, I never have had to defend her she does a damn good job of that herself , and does it well!
Re Burlyshirley, there’s no hard and fast rule that says she has to post any questions , if she wants to contribute just by answering or telling it as it is, then so be it, shes not breaking Site Rules but I see you yourself have derailed your own thread now ( hilarious )
Bobbisox - // Andy you’re sounding more pompous by the second!
Bobbi - //Andy you’re sounding more pompous by the second! //
Ironically, that is a direct insult, and may be removed.
// Re Naomi, I never have had to defend her she does a damn good job of that herself , and does it well! //
No argument there, but you still feel the need to stick up for her, only you know, or care why that is.
//Re Burlyshirley, there’s no hard and fast rule that says she has to post any questions , if she wants to contribute just by answering or telling it as it is, then so be it, shes not breaking Site Rules but I see you yourself have derailed your own thread now ( hilarious ) //
I have not suggested that Burlsyshirley is required to post in any way shape or form, that is her right - as it is yours, and mine, to comment on what we read.
As to 'derailing my own thread' - I have merely responded to points as raised, and the thread is not 'mine' - they don't 'belong' to anyone.
Bobbi - //Andy you’re sounding more pompous by the second! //
Ironically, that is a direct insult, and may be removed.
// Re Naomi, I never have had to defend her she does a damn good job of that herself , and does it well! //
No argument there, but you still feel the need to stick up for her, only you know, or care why that is.
//Re Burlyshirley, there’s no hard and fast rule that says she has to post any questions , if she wants to contribute just by answering or telling it as it is, then so be it, shes not breaking Site Rules but I see you yourself have derailed your own thread now ( hilarious ) //
I have not suggested that Burlsyshirley is required to post in any way shape or form, that is her right - as it is yours, and mine, to comment on what we read.
As to 'derailing my own thread' - I have merely responded to points as raised, and the thread is not 'mine' - they don't 'belong' to anyone.
@11:59...
I simply suggested that she could do something more useful than picking a pointless fight, such as adding to the site with a Question occasionally, and then I could pop up and be nasty to her for the sake of it.
@12:19...
I have not suggested that Burlsyshirley is required to post in any way shape or form, that is her right - as it is yours, and mine, to comment on what we read.
I simply suggested that she could do something more useful than picking a pointless fight, such as adding to the site with a Question occasionally, and then I could pop up and be nasty to her for the sake of it.
@12:19...
I have not suggested that Burlsyshirley is required to post in any way shape or form, that is her right - as it is yours, and mine, to comment on what we read.
Bobbi - // Fill Ya boots , remove it! //
Do me a favour - print this out, and pop it above your monitor, it will save you and I going over this yet again -
Moderators are not permitted to use their powers to censor exchanges in which they are involved personally.
Please ignore anything to the contrary that anyone else may add- they are not party to the exchanges between the Editorial Team and Moderators.
Thank you.
Do me a favour - print this out, and pop it above your monitor, it will save you and I going over this yet again -
Moderators are not permitted to use their powers to censor exchanges in which they are involved personally.
Please ignore anything to the contrary that anyone else may add- they are not party to the exchanges between the Editorial Team and Moderators.
Thank you.
pixie - // I was surprised there didn't seem to be much fuss from Animal rights people about eating live insects etc. (Or maybe I missed it). //
I may have missed that too - although i think that the mistreatment of animals has now been dropped from the tasks.
The ritual pain and humiliation of people for entertainment still remains though, and i maintain my view that it is a slipeery slope for society as a whole that this is revisited every year.
I may have missed that too - although i think that the mistreatment of animals has now been dropped from the tasks.
The ritual pain and humiliation of people for entertainment still remains though, and i maintain my view that it is a slipeery slope for society as a whole that this is revisited every year.
Ah, glad if they have stopped with the animals.
I think there is a point, that it doesn't always come down to "those involve don't mind" - and sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture... such as we have got rid of page 3, etc.
But, I don't think that's the case here, or any different. People just always have and always will like a bit of slapstick. I don't think that's bad, or even a change. These people are consenting, presumably- medically checked first, physically and mentally and given proper care if needed.
I think there is a point, that it doesn't always come down to "those involve don't mind" - and sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture... such as we have got rid of page 3, etc.
But, I don't think that's the case here, or any different. People just always have and always will like a bit of slapstick. I don't think that's bad, or even a change. These people are consenting, presumably- medically checked first, physically and mentally and given proper care if needed.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
ChatterBank61 mins ago
Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.